Anthroposophy

Thoughts and considerations on life, the universe and anthroposophy by Daniel Hindes. Updated occasionally, when the spirit moves me.

Sunday, July 31, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 37

Continuing my commentary on the 10th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism

Next Peter Staudenmaier claims: "For anthroposophists every illness, physical or mental, is karmically determined and plays a role in the soul's development." He almost got this right, but as usual his misunderstanding serves to create a claim inimical to actual Anthroposophy. It is true that all experience, including illness, plays a role in the soul's development. And many (but not all) illnesses have karmic origins. This is an important point, and is the one thing that keeps the anthroposophical understanding of Karma from iron determinism. For there to be free will in the universe, it is important that not everything in the present is determined by the past. If this were not true then there would be no free will. The individual human being has to be free to do both good and evil in order to to truly be truly free. If he or she chooses evil, they may very well harm another person who did not "deserve" to be harmed. Karma only states that they must make it right in a future life. If something bad happens to you, there are two possibilities: One: you deserved it - you did bad things, and this misfortune is the past coming back to you. Two: you are the victim of someone else's bad choices (bear you fate as best you can, and rest assured that every bad deed must be made good again). Three: It may be a chance occurrence. [Steiner’s view of karma also allows for chance, or a random influence in the universe. See Rudolf Steiner. Chance, Providence And Necessity. Spring Valley: Anthroposophical Press, 1988.] Unless you are a clairvoyant you will never know what caused a particular misfortune – the past (karma) or the free will of the present, or simple chance. Further, forgiveness is the highest spiritual good; if someone owes you for a past misdeed and you forgive them - either by forgoing your inclination for revenge or by renouncing the recompense that is due to you (so that it may be used for those who could use even more help) - then you are performing one of the most powerful deeds a free human being can accomplish. In Anthroposophy there is simply no excuse for harming others (weakness is an explanation, but not an excuse - and yes, we are all weak to some degree or other). So no true anthroposophist can ever look at another person and say, "You deserve your misfortune" without also claiming full clairvoyance (something few do). For such a thing can never be known without clairvoyant consciousness.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 36

Peter Staudenmaier's next sentence is further puzzling to an anthroposophist. "Natural processes, historical events, and technological mechanisms are all explained through the action of spirits." It would seem from such a description that Steiner was an extraordinarily superstitious personality. However such a picture is at odds both with his published works and with accounts of his life by those who knew him. Steiner's scientific training was extensive, and he tutored and lectured in depth on the subject. The existence of spiritual beings (angels, nature spirits and even demons) does play a role in Anthroposophy, but spiritual beings do not contravene the laws of nature or interfere in the operation of technology. I am not sure where Peter Staudenmaier picked up this opinion. Since most of his cited sources are hostile secondary literature, some of which has been grounds for libel suits in Germany, it is entirely possible that he is unwittingly repeating a fabrication. It would be easier to get to the bottom of the misunderstanding if he actually cited his sources.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 35

Continuing my commentary on the 10th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. In Steiner's view Anthroposophy is not exclusive. On the other hand, no one is obligated to walk this path.

"No one is exhorted to become an occultist; one must come to occultism of one's own volition. Whoever says that we do not need occultism will not need to occupy himself with it. At this time, occultism does not appeal to mankind in general. In fact, it is extremely difficult in the present culture to submit to those rules of conduct which will open the spiritual world."

Rudolf Steiner. Esoteric Development. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1982. Pages 2-3. Lecture of December 7 th, 1905 (GA 54).

Further, Anthroposophy is comprehensible to anyone, precisely thorough logic.

"These facts [spiritual truths] have been investigated and communicated, and they can be grasped by healthy human intelligence, if this healthy intelligence will be unprejudiced enough not to base its conclusions wholly on what goes by the name of proof, logical deduction, and the like, in regard to the outer sense world. On account of these hindrances it is frequently stated that unless someone is able oneself to investigate supersensible worlds, one cannot understand the results of supersensible research." (Page 81)

"Once again I would like to emphasize: if these things are investigated, everyone who approaches the results with an unprejudiced mind can understand them with ordinary, healthy human reason –just as he can understand what astronomers or biologists have to say about the world. The results can be tested, and indeed one will find that this testing is the first stage of initiation-knowledge. For initiation-knowledge, one must first have an inclination towards truth, because truth not untruth and error, is one's object." (Page 101)

Rudolf Steiner. "Esoteric Development." New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1982. From GA 305, Lecture of September 20 th 1922.


For the purposes of propaganda writing, throwing words like "privileged few" (a catch phrase long savored by propagandists of the left) is doubtless effective. However, it does not accurately represent Steiner’s vision of Anthroposophy.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

My LiveJournal Blog

I've got another blog over at LiveJournal. Check it out!


Daniel on Anthroposophy


It is worth checking out.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 34

Continuing my commentary on the 10th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Or the very first sentence of his book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds (a 1904 reprint of a series of magazine articles from 1902-1903)

"There slumber in every human being faculties by means of which he can acquire for himself a knowledge of higher worlds."

(Online at http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA010/English/GA010_c01.html)


Steiner repeatedly states that his Anthroposophy is accessible to anyone.


"Anyone can set out on the esoteric path; it is closed to no one. The mysteries are present in the breast of each human being. All that is required a serious inner work in the possibility to free ourselves of all the obstacles the block this subtle inner life. We must realize that the world's greatest and most distant aspects are revealed to us in the most intimate ways. Humanity's wisest members have no other means of attaining great truths in the path described here. They achieve these truths because they discovered the path with themselves, because they knew that they have to practice patients in steadfastness in carrying out these routines."

Rudolf Steiner. First Steps in Inner Development. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1999. Page 23. Lecture of 15 Dec 1904 (GA 53) translated by Catherine Creeger.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 33

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 10:

The centerpiece of anthroposophical belief is spiritual advancement through karma and reincarnation, supplemented by the access to esoteric knowledge available to a privileged few. The spiritual dimension, in fact, suffuses every aspect of life. For anthroposophists every illness, physical or mental, is karmically determined and plays a role in the soul's development. Natural processes, historical events, and technological mechanisms are all explained through the action of spirits. Students in Waldorf schools are taught, for example, that good spirits live inside of candles and demons live inside of fluorescent light bulbs—an instance of the anti-technological bias that runs throughout anthroposophical thought.

While it is certainly true that a “centerpiece of anthroposophical belief is spiritual advancement through karma and reincarnation" it is also true that “access to esoteric knowledge available to a privileged few” is contrary to the very purpose of Anthroposophy. Steiner stated that one of the purposes of Anthroposophy is to make public occult knowledge that was previously secret. This is one of his constant themes from the very beginning.


"We are living in an age when supersensible knowledge can no longer remain the secret possession of a few. No, it must become the common property of all, in whom the meaning of life within this age is stirring as a very condition of their soul's existence."

Rudolf Steiner. Supersensible Knowledge. 1916. 29 Nov 2004. < http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/SupKno_index.html > (1916 magazine article, reprinted in GA 35)

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 32

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 9:

Immediately after the split, Steiner founded the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Shortly before the outbreak of world war one he moved the fledgling organization's international headquarters to Switzerland. Under the protection of Swiss neutrality he was able to build up a permanent center in the village of Dornach. Blending theosophical wisdom with his own "occult research," Steiner continued to develop the theory and practice of Anthroposophy, along with a steadily growing circle of followers, until his death in 1925.


The first inaccuracy lies in claiming that Steiner founded the Anthroposophical Society. Marie von Sievers, Michael Bauer and Carl Unger did. (See Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie, Stuttgart 1997, page 503 ) Rudolf Steiner conscientiously refrained from breaking from the Theosophical Society or from giving his followers any indication that he wished for this to happen. The initiative to found a new society came entirely from the three mentioned above, and Steiner did not join this new society until 1923.

To the second error, I have previously quoted Steiner on his relationship to Theosophy and the Theosophical Society. Steiner was quite clear that there was no “blending” of his research with Theosophical doctrine. He claimed to speak only of what he directly knew. The closest thing to a blending was Steiner's use of the Theosophical vocabulary to describe certain aspects of supersensible experience. However, the use of similar vocabulary does not make for a common worldview. Certainly a scholar can claim that Steiner was wrong in his assertions. However, to do so a scholar would have to present a far more comprehensive argument, and be in possession of a far deeper background in both Theosophical doctrine and Steiner's Anthroposophy than Peter Staudenmaier has shown.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 31

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Staudenmaier also seems quite fixated on the idea of superiority. Steiner did not ever claim the “superiority” or the European over the eastern esoteric traditions. He did claim that the European method of occult training was the only one appropriate for most modern Europeans, and gave quite specific reasons. Steiner allows that a European could take up the yoga path. However, given the demands, including a complete withdrawal from society and subsuming one’s own will to the guidance of the guru, it would be an unusual European who could do so successfully.

In Steiner's estimation, there are three paths of esoteric development: the Eastern, or Indian path, the Christian-Mystical and the Rosicrucian. Steiner professed to be working in the Rosicrucian tradition:


“The eastern way of development (also called yoga). Here an initiated human being living on the physical plane acts as a guru for another human being, who entrusts himself or herself - completely and in all details - to that guru. This method works best for those who, during esoteric development, entirely eliminate their own self and hand it over to the guru. The guru must advise students on their every action.” (Page 61)

“The Rosicrucian way of development. This path leaves the pupil at the greatest possible independence. The guru here is no longer a leader, but an adviser who gives direction for the necessary inner training. At the same time, the guru makes certain that, parallel with the esoteric training, there is a definite development of thinking - without which no esoteric training can be carried through. This is because there is something about thinking that does not apply to anything else. When we're on the physical plane, we perceive with the physical sense is only what is on that plane. Astral perceptions are valid for the astral plane; devachanic hearing is valid only in devachan. Thus each plane has its own specific form of perception. But one activity - logical thinking - goes through all worlds. Logic is the same on all three planes. Thus, on the physical plane you can learn something that his valid also for the higher planes. This is the method followed by Rosicrucian training when, on the physical plane, it gives primary attention to thinking, and for this purpose uses the means available on the physical plane. Penetrating thinking can be cultivated by studying spiritual scientific truths, or by practicing thought exercises.” (Page 62)

“The Christian way. In this Christian way can be followed with the adviser the teacher knows what has to be done and can rectify mistakes of every step. Keep in mind, however, that in Christian training the great guru is Jesus Christ himself. Hence it is essential to firmly believe in Christ's presence and his life on earth. Without this, feeling of union with him is impossible.” (Page 63)

Rudolf Steiner. First Steps in Inner Development. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1999. From a lecture titled “The Way to Inner Development”, given on September 2nd, 1906, and printed in volume 95 of the complete works.


If Staudenmaier wishes to judge the relative merits of the various methods of occult training it would be interesting to hear his criteria and conclusions.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 30

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

What separated Steiner from the other India-oriented theosophists from the very beginning was the simple difference that while others may have followed masters, Steiner acknowledged no other authority than his own insight. As we heard above, he made this clear even before joining the Theosophical Society. Further, he demanded that his students form their own judgments about his teachings, and felt that the guru model was inappropriate for modern Europeans.

Peter Staudenmaier has glossed over the fundamental issue that caused the split between the India-oriented Theosophists and Steiner. This issue is not insignificant, and has nothing to do with racism. It is a dispute over the nature of the Christ. To present Steiner's view:


"One could talk about an opposition of the Christian-Occidental and Indian-Oriental principle only if someone wanted to set Wotan above Krishna. But the Christ has nothing to do with all this: from the beginning, He does not belong to any one people, but realizes the most beautiful principle in spiritual science: to acknowledge something without discrimination of color, race and nationality."

Rudolf Steiner. The Gospel of St. Mark. 1912. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1950. Page 36. Lecture of September 16th, 1912.

Peter Staudenmaier displays an amazing predilection for presenting aspects of Steiner's thought and biography to their exact opposite.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 28

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':


The break with the Theosophical Society came in 1913, and not because Steiner disagreed with other Theosophists, which he had done for years, and not directly because of the Krishnamurti. The break was a result of actions by the Theosophical leadership to sideline Steiner over differences of opinion concerning the nature of the Christ. The details can be tedious, but the ultimatum was delivered in India by Besant when, in an address to the Theosophical society she said: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to shake himself sufficiently clear of that fatal influence to allow liberty of opinion within his section.” She also demanded his resignation. The claim of a Jesuit influence was completely without basis, and the final straw, not for Steiner, but for the members of the German section of the Theosophical Society. A few founded the Anthroposophical Society, which very quickly grew from the ranks of the Theosophical society. Besant did not even wait for Steiner to resign; she unilaterally transferred the chairmanship to one Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Steiner remained an independent lecturer, and not even a member of the new Anthroposophical Society, until 1923.(Steiner assumed the leadership of the General Anthroposophical Society in December, 1923) Here once again we see that the actual facts contradict Staudenmaier's version of them.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 27

On May 8th, 1911 Besant declared Krishnamurti the reincarnated Christ. [The following paragraph is based on the chapter “Die Trennung von der Theosophischen Geselschaft” (The separation from the theosophical society) in Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1997, pages 484-504]. This had been building up for some time. Since Leadbeater had “discovered” Krishnamurti, he had been groomed for an important role. Leadbeater researched the previous lives of an important individuality he called Alcyone, publishing his findings in a series of articles titled “Rents in the Veil of Time” in the English periodical Theosophist starting in April 1910. These were collected in his book The Lives of Alcyone. Going back 23,650 years before Christ, Leadbeater described Alcyone (whom he identified as Krishnamurti) and the people around him over successive incarnations. Important people in the Theosophical movement were involved in these previous lives, usually the more important the person in the present Theosophical Society, the more prominent they were in history. Leadbeater was “Sirius” and Besant was “Hercules.” Even among Theosophists his descriptions were not always taken seriously, as evidence by the limerick “In the Lives, in the Lives, I've had all sorts of husbands and wives.” A more detailed description is offered by Alice Leighton Cleather, in a letter she wrote in 1913 and reprinted as part of a book in 1923:

"The ill-omened consequences of this influence were soon to appear before the world through the affair of Alcyone and the founding of the Order of the Star in the East . . . lf a real Indian initiate, a Brahmin or otherwise, of ripe age, had come to Europe an his own responsibility or in the name of his Masters to teach his doctrines, nothing would have been more natural or interesting. . . . But it was not in this form that we beheld the new apostle from Adyar. A young Indian, aged thirteen, initiated by Mr. Leadbeater ... is proclaimed and presented to the European public as the future teacher of the new era. Krishnamurti, now called Alcyone, has no other credentials than his master's injunctions and Mrs. Besant's patronage. His thirty-two previous incarnations are related at length the early ones going back to the Atlantean period. These narrations, given as the result of Mr. Leadbeater's and Mrs. Besant's visions, are for the most part grotesquely puerile, and could convince no serious occultist. They are ostensibly designed to prove that for twenty or thirty thousand years the principal personages in the T. S. [Theosophical Society] have been preparing for the " Great Work " which is soon to be accomplished. In the course of their incarnations, which remind one of a newspaper novel, these personages are decorated with the great names of Greek mythology, and with the most brilliant stars in the firmament. During a meeting at Benares, Krishnamurti presenting certificates to his followers, received honours like a divine being, many persons present falling at his feet. He does not, however utter a word, but only makes a gesture of benediction, prompted by Mrs. Besant. In reporting this scene Mr. Leadbeater likens it to the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

For this dumb prophet is founded the Order of the Star in the East, which the whole world is invited to join, and of which he is proclaimed the head . . . this passive young prodigy, who has not yet given the world the least proof of having any mission at all… becomes henceforth the centre and cynosure of the T. S., the symbol and sacred ark of the orthodox faith at Adyar. As to the doctrine preached by Mrs. Besant, it rests on a perpetual equivocation. She allows the English public at large, to whom she speaks of the coming Christ, to believe that he is identical with the Christ of the Gospels, whereas to her intimates she states what Mr. Leadbeater teaches, and what he openly proclaims in one of his books, The Inner Life – namely, that the Christ of the Gospels never existed, and was an invention of the monks of the second century. Such facts are difficult to characterize. I will simply say that they are saddening for all who, like myself, believed in the future of the T. S., for they can only repel clear-sighted and sincere minds…"

Cleather, Alic Leighton. H. P. Blavatsky: A Great Betrayal. Calcutta, India: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1922. Pages 12-13.


Steiner was notably absent from Leadbeater's book. While some at the time doubtless wondered, Steiner himself knew why. In June 1909 Besant had offered him the position of John the Baptist in the scheme – a role that was to have paralleled the one Besant imagined for him: the herald of the Christ. Steiner had politely declined. His response was to continue to hold lectures throughout Europe on his understanding of the Christ event, which he had long termed “The Mystery of Golgotha.” The descent of God into a human body was a one-time event, central to earth evolution. From the beginning Steiner had been clear that he would only teach what he himself perceived, and would not under any circumstances represent some party doctrine.